The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 1 of 4 by American Anti-Slavery Society

Its easy to link to paragraphs in the Full Text ArchiveIf this page contains some material that you want to link to but you don't want your visitors to have to scroll down the whole page just hover your mouse over the relevent paragraph and click the bookmark icon that appears to the left of it. The address of that paragraph will appear in the address bar of your browser. For further details about how you can link to the Full Text Archive please refer to our linking page.

17, 19. "_For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, agreat God, a mighty and a terrible, which_ REGARDETH NOT PERSONS, _nortaketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow,and_ LOVETH THE STRANGER, _in giving him food and raiment_, LOVE YETHEREFORE THE STRANGER." So Exodus xxii. 21. "_Thou shalt neither vex astranger nor oppress him_." Exodus xxiii. 9. "_Thou shalt not oppress astranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger_." Lev. xxv. 35, 36. "_Ifthy brother be waxen poor thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a_STRANGER _or a sojourner, that he may live with thee, take thou no usuryof him or increase, but fear thy God_." [What an absurdity to supposethat _this same stranger_ could be taken by one that _feared his God_,held as a _slave_, and robbed of time, earnings, and all his rights!]

III.--DID PERSONS BECOME SERVANTS VOLUNTARILY, OR WERE THEY MADESERVANTS AGAINST THEIR WILLS?

We argue that they became servants _of their own accord_,

1. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was toabjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with God[A], to be circumcisedin token of it, to be bound to the observance of the Sabbath, of thePassover, the Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and to receiveinstruction in all the particulars of the moral and ceremonial law.

[Footnote A: Maimonides, who wrote in Egypt about seven hundred yearsago, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the head ofJewish writers, gives the following testimony on this point: "Whether aservant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be purchasedfrom the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the covenant.""But he that is in the _house_ is entered on the eighth day, and he thatis bought with money, on the day on which the master receives him,unless the slave be _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grownslave, and he be _unwilling_, his master is to bear with him, to seek towin him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year.After which, should he _refuse_ so long, it is forbidden to keep him,longer than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangersfrom whence he came. For the God of Jacob will not accept any other thanthe worship of a _willing_ heart."--Maimon, Hilcoth, Miloth, Chap. 1st,Sec. 8th.

The ancient Jewish Doctors agree in the testimony, that the servant fromthe strangers who at the close of his probationary year still refused toadopt the religion of the Mosaic system, and was on that account cut offfrom the family, and sent back to his own people, received a _fullcompensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his expenses. Butthat _postponement_ of the circumcision of the foreign servant for ayear (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of an Israelite)of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a mere usage_.We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic system.Circumcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_. Whether it wasa rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes not within thescope of this inquiry. Nor does it at all affect the argument. ]

Were the servants _forced_ through all these processes? Was therenunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenantwith God? Were they seized and circumcised by _main strength_? Were they_compelled_ mechanically to chew, and swallow, the flesh of the Paschallamb, while they abhorred the institution, despised its ceremonies,spurned the law which enjoined it, detested its author and executors,and instead of rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemmorated,bewailed it as a calamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? Werethey _driven_ from all parts of the land three times in the year up tothe annual festivals? Were they drugged with instruction which theynauseated? Were they goaded through a round of ceremonies, to themsenseless and disgusting mummeries; and drilled into the tactics of acreed rank with loathed abominations?

We repeat it, to become a _servant_, was to become a _proselyte_. Andhow did God authorize his people to make proselytes? At the point of thesword? By the terror of pains and penalties? By converting men into_merchandise_? Were _proselyte_ and _chattel_ synonymes, in the Divinevocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into covenantwith God? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and the solepassport to the communion of the saints?

2. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, 16,"_Thou shall not deliver unto his master the servant which is escapedfrom his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, inthat place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it likethhim best; thou shalt not oppress him_."

As though God had said, "To deliver him up would be to recognize the_right_ of the master to hold him. His _fleeing_ "shows his_choice_--proclaims his wrongs, his master's oppressive acts, and hisown claim to legal protection." You shall not force him back, and thusrecognize the _right_ of the master to hold him in such a condition asinduces him to flee to others for protection." It may be objected, thatthis command had no reference to servants among the _Israelites_, butonly to those of _heathen_ masters in the surrounding nations. Weanswer, The regulation has no restriction. Its terms are unlimited. Butthe objection, even if valid, merely shifts the pressure of thedifficulty to another point. Does God array his infinite authority toprotect the _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the heathen, andyet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice of_thousands_ of servants from the heathen! Suppose a case. A _foreign_servant flees from his master to the Israelites; God speaks, "He shalldwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thygates where it _liketh_ him best." They were strictly charged not to puthim in a condition which he did not _choose_. Now, suppose this sameservant, instead of coming into Israel of his own accord, had been_dragged_ in by some kidnapper who _bought_ him of his master, and_forced_ him into a condition against his will. Would He who forbadesuch treatment of the stranger, who _voluntarily_ came into the land,sanction the _same_ treatment of the _same person_, provided in_addition_ to this last outrage, the _previous_ one had been committedof _forcing him into the nation against his will_?

To commit violence on the free choice of a _foreign_ servant is ahorrible enormity, forsooth, PROVIDED you _begin_ the violence _after_he has come among you. But if you commit the _first act_, on the _otherside of the line_; if you _begin_ the outrage by buying him from a thirdperson _against his will_, and then tear him from home, and drag himacross the line into the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave--ah!that alters the case, and you may perpetrate the violence now withimpunity! Would _greater_ favor have been shown to this new comer fromthe heathen than to the old residents--those who had been servants inJewish families perhaps for a generation? Were the Israelites commandedto exercise toward _him_, uncircumcised and _out_ of the covenant, ajustice and kindness denied to the multitude, who _were_ circumcised,and _within_ the covenant?

Again: the objector finds small gain to his argument on the suppositionthat the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surroundingnations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a conditionagainst their wills--the objector finds small gain to his argument. Inthat case, the surrounding nations would of course adopt retaliatorymeasures, and resolve themselves into so many asylums for fugitiveIsraelitish servants. As these nations were on every side of them such aproclamation would have been an effectual lure to men held in acondition which was a constant _counteraction of will_. Further, theobjector's assumption destroys itself; for the same command whichprotected the foreign servant from the power of his _master_, protectedhim equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was not merely, "Thoushalt not deliver him to his _master_," but "he (the servant) shalldwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thygates where it liketh him best." Every Israelite was commanded torespect his free choice, and to put him in no condition _against hiswill_. What was this but a proclamation, that all who _chose_ to live inthe land and obey the laws, were left to their own free will, to disposeof their services at such a rate, to such persons, and in such places asthey pleased?

Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of_foreign_ servants merely, was the any law requiring the return ofservants who had escaped from the _Israelites_? There was a statuterequiring the return of _property_ lost, and _cattle_ escaped, but nonerequiring the return of escaped _servants_.

Finally, these verses contain, _first_, a command, "Thou shalt notdeliver," &c. _Secondly_, a declaration of the fugitive's right of _freechoice_, and of God's will that he should exercise it at his owndiscretion; and _thirdly_, a command guarding this right, namely, "Thoushalt not oppress him," as though God had said, If you forbid him toexercise his _own choice_, as to the place and condition of hisresidence, it is _oppression_, and I will not tolerate it.

3. _We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiaropportunities and facilities for escape_. Three times every year, allthe males over twelve years of age, were required to attend the publicfestivals. The main body were thus absent from their homes not less thanthree weeks each time, making nine weeks annually. As these caravansmoved over the country, were there military scouts lining the way, tointercept deserters?--a corporal's guard stationed at each pass of themountains, sentinels pacing the hill-tops, and light horse scouring thedefiles? What safe contrivance had the Israelites for taking their_"slaves"_ three times in a year to Jerusalem and back? When a body ofslaves is moved any distance in our free and equal _republic_, they arehandcuffed to keep them from running away, or beating their drivers'brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ plan, or an improvement left for thewisdom of Solomon? The usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not lessvenerable and biblical! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, andtransported in bundles, or caged up, and trundled on wheels to and fro,and while at the Holy City, "lodged in jail for safe keeping," religionsservices _extra_ being appointed, and special "ORAL instruction" fortheir benefit. But meanwhile, what became of the sturdy _handmaids_ leftat home? What hindered them from marching off in a body? Perhaps theIsraelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, whilethe young ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, to pick upstragglers by day, and patrolled the streets as city guards, keeping asharp look-out at night.

4. _Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performanceof various rites and ceremonies necessarily_ VOLUNTARY.

Suppose a servant from the heathen should, upon entering a Jewishfamily, refuse circumcision; the question whether he shall remain aservant, is in his own hands. If a _slave_, how simple the process ofemancipation! His _refusal_ did the job. Or, suppose that, at any time,he should refuse to attend the tri-yearly feasts, or should eat leavenedbread during the Passover, or compound the ingredients of the anointingoil, he is "cut off from the people;" _excommunicated_.

5. _We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patriarchs fromthe impossibility of their being held against their wills._ The servantsof Abraham are an illustration. At one time he had three hundred andeighteen _young men_ "born in his house," and probably many more _not_born in his house. The whole number of his servants of all ages, wasprobably MANY THOUSANDS. Doubtless, Abraham was a man of a million, andSarah too, a right notable housekeeper; still, it is not easy toconceive how they contrived to hold so many thousand servants againsttheir wills, unless the patriarch and his wife _took turns_ inperforming the Hibernian exploit of surrounding them! The neighboringtribes, instead of constituting a picket guard to hem in his servants,would have been far more likely to sweep them and him into captivity, asthey did Lot and his household. Besides, Abraham had neither"Constitution," nor "compact," nor statutes, nor judicial officers tosend back his fugitives, nor a truckling police to pounce uponpanic-stricken women, nor gentleman-kidnappers, suing for patronage,volunteering to howl on the track, boasting their blood-hound scent, andpledging their "honor" to hunt down and "deliver up," _provided_ theyhad a description of the "flesh marks," and were stimulated in theirchivalry by _pieces of silver_. Abraham seems also to have been sadlydeficient in all the auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks,hand cuffs, foot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His destitutionof these patriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, when weconsider his faithful discharge of responsibilities to his household,though so deplorably destitute of the needful aids.

6. _We infer that servants were voluntary, from the fact that there isno instance of an Israelitish master ever_ SELLING _a servant_. Abrahamhad thousands of servants, but appears never to have sold one. Isaac"grew until he became very great," and had "great store of servants."Jacob's youth was spent in the family of Laban, where he lived a servanttwenty-one years. Afterward he had a large number of servants.

When Joseph sent for Jacob to come into Egypt, the words are, "thou andthy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks and thy herds,and ALL THAT THOU HAST." Jacob took his flocks and herds but _noservants_. Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 6; xlvii. 1. His servants doubtless,served under their _own contracts_, and when Jacob went into Egypt, they_chose_ to stay in their own country.

The government might sell _thieves_, if they had no property, untiltheir services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex.xxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their_servants_--the reason is obvious. To give the master a _right_ to sellhis servant, would annihilate the servant's right of choice in his owndisposal; but says the objector, To give the master a right to _buy_ aservant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of choice_. Answer. Itis one thing to have a right to buy a man, and a very different thing tohave a right to buy him of _another_ man.

Though there is no instance of a servant being bought of his, or hermaster, yet there are instances of young females being bought of their_fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ was their betrothal asWIVES. Exodus xxi. 7, 8. "_If a man sell his daughter to be amaid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she pleasenot her master_ WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF, _he shall let her beredeemed_[A]."

[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is as follows: "AHebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself underobligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fitto be betrothed."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV. Sec. XI.

Jarchi, on the same passage, says, "He is bound to espouse her and takeher to be his wife for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her_espousals_." ]

7. _We infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in_ COMMENCING _hisservice, because he was pre-eminently so_ IN CONTINUING _it_. If, at theyear of release, it was the servant's _choice_ to remain with hismaster, so did the law guard his free will, that it required his ear tobe bored by the judges of the land, thus making it impossible for theservant to be held in an involuntary condition. Yea, so far was his_free choice_ protected, that his master was compelled to keep him,however much he might wish to get rid of him.

8. _The method prescribed for procuring servants, recognized theirchoice, and was an appeal to it_. The Israelites were commanded to offerthem a suitable _inducement_, and then leave them to decide. They mightneither seize by _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedlethem by false pretenses, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but theywere commanded to BUY them[A]; that is, they were to recognize the_right_ of the individuals to their own services--their right to_dispose_ of them, and their right to _refuse all offers_. They might,if they pleased, refuse all applications, and thus oblige those who madethem, _to do their own work_. Suppose all, with one accord, _refused_ tobecome servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such anemergency? NONE.

[Footnote A: The case of thieves, whose services were sold until theyhad earned enough to make restitution to the person wronged, and to paythe legal penalty, _stands by itself_, and has no relation to thecondition of servants.]

9. _Various incidental expressions throughout the Bible, corroborate theidea that servants became such by virtue of their own contract_. Jobxli. 4. is an illustration, "_Will he_ (Leviathan) _make a_ COVENANT_with thee? wilt thou take him for a_ SERVANT _forever?_"

10. _The transaction which made the Egyptians the_ SERVANTS OF PHAROAH,_shows entire voluntariness throughout_. It is detailed in Gen. xlvii.18-26. Of their own accord, they came to Joseph and said, "We have notaught left but our _bodies_ and our lands; _buy_ us;" then in the 25thverse, _"Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of myLord, and we will be servants to Pharaoh._"

11. _We argue that the condition of servants was an_ OPTIONAL _one fromthe fact that_ RICH _strangers did not become servants._ Indeed, so farwere they from becoming servants themselves, that _they bought and heldJewish servants._ Lev. xxv. 47.

13. _Mention is often made of persons becoming servants where they weremanifestly and pre-eminently_ VOLUNTARY. The case of the Prophet Elishais one. 1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. Theoriginal word, translated master, is the same that is so rendered inalmost every instance where masters are spoken of throughout the Mosaicand patriarchal systems. It is translated _master_ eighty-five times inour English version. Moses was the servant of Jethro. Exodus iii. 1.Joshua was the servant of Moses. Numbers xi. 28. Jacob was the servantof Laban. Genesis xxix, 18-27.

IV. WERE THE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY?

Having already shown that the servants became and continued such _oftheir own accord_, it would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to workwithout pay. Their becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as amotive.

That they _were paid_ for their labor, we argue,

1. _Because, while Israel was under the Mosaic system, God rebuked inthunder, the sin of using the labor of others without wages. "Wo untohim that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers bywrong; that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth himnot for his work._" Jer. xxii. 13. Here God testifies that to use theservice of others without wages is "unrighteousness," and He commissionshis "wo" to burn upon the doer of the "wrong." This "wo" was a permanentsafeguard of the _Mosaic system_. The Hebrew word _Rea_, here translated_neighbor_, does not mean one man, or class of men, in distinction fromothers, but _any one with whom we have to do_--all descriptions ofpersons, not merely servants and heathen, but even those who prosecuteus in lawsuits, and enemies while in the act of fighting us--"_As when aman riseth against his_ NEIGHBOR _and slayeth him._" Deut. xxii. 26."_Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in theend thereof, when thy_ NEIGHBOR _hath put thee to shame._" Prov. xxv. 8."_Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy_ NEIGHBOR." Exod. xx.16. "_If any man come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR to slay him withguile_." Exod. xxi. 14. In these, and in scores of similar cases, _Rea_is the original word.

2. _We have the testimony of God, that in our duty to our fellow men,_ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS _hang upon this command, "Thou shalt lovethy neighbor as thyself._" Our Saviour, in giving this command, quoted_verbatim_ one of the laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the34th verse of the same chapter, Moses commands obedience to this law inall the treatment of strangers, "_The stranger that dwelleth with youshall be unto you as one born among you, and_ THOU SHALT LOVE HIM ASTHYSELF." If it be loving others _as_ ourselves, to make them work forus without pay; to rob them of food and clothing, as well as wages,would be a stranger illustration still of the law of love!Super-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing to others as wewould have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ good alone,Paul should be called to order for his hard sayings against humannature, especially for that libellous matter in Ephes. v. 29, "_No manever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it_."

3. _As persons became servants_ FROM POVERTY, _we argue that they werecompensated, since they frequently owned property, and sometimes a largeamount_. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David a princelypresent, "An hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred bunches of raisins,and an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine." 2 Sam. xvi. 1.The extent of his possessions can be inferred from the fact, that thoughthe father of fifteen sons, he still employed twenty servants, of whomhe was the master.

A case is stated in Leviticus xxv. 47-55, where a servant, reduced topoverty, sells himself; and it is declared that afterward he may be_redeemed_, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. As he was forced tosell himself from sheer poverty he must not only have acquired property_after_ he became a servant, but a considerable sum.

If it had not been common for servants to possess, and acquire property,over which they had the exclusive control, Gehazi, the servant ofElisha, would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly$3000[A]) from Naaman, (2 Kings v. 22, 23.) As it was procured bydeceit, he was anxious to conceal the means used in getting it; but ifthe Israelitish servants, like our slaves, could "own nothing, noracquire any thing," to embark in such an enterprise would have beenconsummate stupidity. The fact of having in his possession two talentsof silver, would of itself convict him of theft[B]. But since thepossession and use of property by servants, was common under the Mosaicsystem, he might have it, and invest or use it, without attractingspecial attention. And that consideration alone would have been a strongmotive to the act. His master, while he rebukes him for using such meansto get the money, not only does not take it from him, but seems toexpect that he would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and wouldprocure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. In 1 Sam. ix. 8, we find theservant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emergency.Arza, the servant of Elah, was the _owner of a house_. That it wasspacious and somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from thefact that it was a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. The case of theGibeonites, who, after they became servants, still occupied theircities, and remained, in many respects, a distinct people for centuries;and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the _servants_ of Solomon, whoworked out their tribute of bond-service in levies, periodicallyrelieving each other, while preparing the materials for the temple, areadditional illustrations of independence in the acquisition andownership of property.

[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide with accuracyupon the _relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and _now_, yet we haveenough to warrant us in saying that two talents of silver had far morevalue _then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]

[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealinga large amount of money? They "_know how to take care of themselves_"quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it onsuch a _small_ scale, or in the taking of _such things_ as will makedetection difficult. No doubt they steal now and then a little, and agaping marvel would it be if they did not. Why should they not follow inthe footsteps of their masters and mistresses? Dull scholars indeed! if,after so many lessons from _proficients_ in the art, who drive thebusiness by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy theirbetters, fall into the _fashion_, and try their hand in a small way, ata practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ business carriedon around them! Ignoble truly! never to feel the stirrings of highimpulse, prompting them to imitate the eminent pattern set before themin the daily vocation of "Honorables" and "Excellencies," and to emulatethe illustrious examples of Doctor of Divinity and _Right_ and _VeryReverends_! Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his notes ofVirginia, speaking of slaves, he says, "That disposition to theft withwhich they (the slaves) have been branded, must be ascribed to their_situation_, and not to any special depravity of the moral sense. It isa problem which I give the master to solve, whether the religiousprecepts against the violation of property were not framed for HIM aswell as for his slave--and whether the slave may not as justifiably takea little from one who has taken ALL from him, as he may _slay_ one whowould slay him" See Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, pp. 207-8]

4. _Heirship_--Servants frequently inherited their master's property;especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family. Thisseems to have been a general usage.

The cases of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; Ziba, the servant ofMephibosheth, Jarha an Egyptian, the servant of Sheshan, and the husbandof his daughter; 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35, and of the _husbandmen_ who saidof their master's son, "_this is the_ HEIR, let us kill him, _and_ theINHERITANCE WILL BE OURS." Mark xii. 7, are illustrations. Also thedeclaration in Prov. xvii. 2--"_A wise servant shall have rule over ason that causeth shame, and_ SHALL HAVE PART OF THE INHERITANCE AMONGTHE BRETHREN." This passage seems to give _servants_ precedence asheirs, even over the _wives_ and _daughters_ of their masters. Didmasters hold by force, and _plunder of earnings_, a class of persons,from which, in frequent contingencies, they selected both heirs fortheir property, and husbands for their daughters?

Servants must have had permanently, the means of _acquiring_ property tomeet these expenditures.

6. _Those Hebrew servants who went out at the seventh year, wereprovided by law with a large stock of provisions and cattle_. Deut. xv.11-14. "_Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out ofthy floor, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith the Lord thy Godhath blessed thee, thou shalt give him_[A]." If it be objected, that nomention is made of the servants from the strangers, receiving a likebountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable class of the_Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason, _theydid not go out in the seventh year_, but continued until the jubilee. Ifthe fact that no mention is made of the Gentile servants receiving sucha _gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_; it provesthat the most valued class of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirsalso, a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators,however unscrupulous.

[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this passage is asfollows--"'Thou shalt furnish him liberally,' &c. That is to say,'_Loading ye shall load him._' likewise every one of his family, with asmuch as he can take with him in abundant benefits. And if it beavariciously asked, How much must I give him? I say unto _you, not lessthan thirty shekels_, which is the valuation of a servant, as declaredin Exodus xxi. 32"--Maimonides, Hilcoth, Obedim, Chapter ii. Section 3.]

7. _The servants were_ BOUGHT. _In other words, they receivedcompensation for their services in advance_. Having shown, under aprevious head, that servants _sold themselves_, and of course receivedthe compensation for themselves, (except in cases where parents hiredout the time of their children until they became of age[B],) a merereference to the fact in this place is all that is required for thepurposes of this argument.

[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, andboys at thirteen years.]

8. _We infer that servants were paid, because we find masters at onetime having a large number of servants, and afterwards none, without anyintimation that they were sold._ The wages of servants would enable themto set up in business for themselves. Jacob, after being the servant ofLaban for twenty-one years, became thus an independent herdsman, and wasthe master of many servants. Gen. xxx. 43, and xxxii. 15. But all theseservants had left him before he went down into Egypt, having doubtlessacquired enough to commence business for themselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11,and xlvi. 1-7, 32.

9. _God's testimony to the character of Abraham._ Genesis xviii. 19._"For I know him that he will command his children and his householdafter him, and they shall keep_ THE WAY OF THE LORD TO DO JUSTICE ANDJUDGMENT." We have here God's testimony, that Abraham taught hisservants "the way of the Lord." What was the "way of the Lord"respecting the payment of wages where service was rendered? "_Wo untohim that useth his neighbor's service without wages_!" Jer. xxii. 13."_Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal_." Col.iv. 1. _"Render unto all their_ DUES." ROM. xiii. 7. _"The laborer isworthy of his hire."_ Luke x. 7. How did Abraham teach his servants to_"do justice"_ to others? By doing _injustice to them?_ Did he exhortthem to "render to all their dues" by keeping back _their own_? Did heteach them that "the laborer was worthy of his hire" by robbing them of_theirs_? Did he beget in them a reverence for the eighth commandment bypilfering all their time and labor? Did he teach them "not to defraud"others "in any matter" by denying _them_ "what was just and equal?" Ifeach of Abraham's pupils under such a catechism did not become a very_Aristides_ in justice, then an illustrious example, patriarchaldignity, and _practical_ lessons, can make but slow headway againsthuman perverseness!

10. _Specific precepts of the Mosaic law enforcing general principles._Out of many, we select the following:

(1.) _"Thou shall not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn,"_ orliterally, _while he thresheth._ Deut. xxv. 4. Here is a generalprinciple applied to a familiar case. The ox representing all domesticanimals. Isaiah xxx. 24. A _particular_ kind of service--_all_ kinds;and a law requiring an abundant provision for the wants of an animalministering to man in a _certain_ way,--_a general principle oftreatment covering all times, modes, and instrumentalities of service._The object of the law was, not merely to enjoin tenderness towardsbrutes, but to inculcate the duty of _rewarding those who serve us_,showing that they who labor for others, are entitled to what is just andequal in return; and if such care is enjoined, by God, not merely forthe ample sustenance, but for the _present enjoyment of a brute_, whatwould be a meet return for the services of _man_? MAN, with his variedwants, exalted nature and immortal destiny! Paul tells us expressly,that the principle which we have named, lies at the bottom of thestatute. See 1 Corinthians ix. 9, 10--_"For it is written in the law ofMoses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out thecorn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for OURsakes? that he that ploweth should plow in_ HOPE, _and that he thatthresheth in hope should be_ PARTAKER OF HIS HOPE."

(2.) "_If thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, thenthou shalt relieve him._ YEA, THOUGH HE BE A STRANGER OR a SOJOURNER,_that he may live with thee. Take thou no usury of him, or increase, butfear thy God. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend himthy victuals for increase._" Lev. xxv. 35-37. Or, in other words,"relief at your hands is his right, and your duty--you shall not takeadvantage of his necessities, but cheerfully supply them." Now, we ask,by what process of pro-slavery legerdemain, this benevolent regulationcan be made to be in _keeping_ with the doctrine of WORK WITHOUT PAY?Did God declare the poor stranger entitled to RELIEF, and in the samebreath, _authorize_ them to _"use his services without wages_;" forcehim to work, and ROB HIM OF ALL HIS EARNINGS? Judge ye.

V.--WERE MASTERS THE PROPRIETORS OF SERVANTS AS THEIR LEGAL PROPERTY?

The discussion of this topic has been already somewhat anticipated underthe preceding heads; but a variety of considerations, not within therange of our previous inquiries, remain to be noticed.

1. _Servants were not subjected to the uses, nor liable to thecontingencies of property._

Cases are recorded to which creditors took from debtors property of allkinds, to satisfy their demands. In Job xxiv. 3, cattle are taken; inProv. xxii 27, household furniture; in Lev. xxv. 25-28, the productionsof the soil; in Lev. xxv. 27-30, houses; in Exodus xxii. 26-29, andDeut. xxiv. 10-13, and Matt. v. 40, clothing; but _servants_ were takenin _no instance_.

(2.) _Servants were never given as pledges_. _Property_ of all sorts wasgiven and held in pledge. We find in the Bible, household furniture,clothing, cattle, money, signets, and personal ornaments, with diversother articles of property, used as pledges for value received. But no_servants_.

OBJECTION 1. _Laban_ GAVE _handmaids to his daughters, Jacob's wives_.Without enlarging on the nature of the polygamy then prevalent, it isenough to say that the handmaids of wives, at that time, were themselvesregarded as wives, though of inferior dignity and authority. That Jacobso regarded his handmaids, is proved by his curse upon Reuben, (Gen.xlix. 4, and Chron. v. 1) also by the equality of their children withthose of Rachel and Leah. But had it been otherwise--had Laban giventhem _as articles of property_, then, indeed, the example of this "goodold patriarch and slaveholder," Saint Laban, would have been afore-closer to all argument.

Ah! We remember his jealousy for _religion_--his holy indignation whenhe found that his "GODS" were stolen! How he mustered his clan, andplunged over the desert in hot pursuit, seven days, by forced marches;how he ransacked a whole caravan, sifting the contents of every tent,little heeding such small matters as domestic privacy, or femaleseclusion, for lo! the zeal of his "IMAGES" had eaten him up!

No wonder that slavery, in its Bible-navigation, drifting dismantledbefore the free gusts, should scud under the lee of such a pious worthyto haul up and refit; invoking his protection, and the benediction ofhis "GODS!"

OBJECTION 2. _Servants were enumerated in inventories of property_. Ifthat proves _servants_ property, it proves _wives_ property. "_Thoushalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thyneighbor's_ WIFE, _nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor hisox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's_" EXODUS xx. 17.An examination of all the places in which servants are included amongbeasts, chattels, &c., will show, that in inventories of _mereproperty_, servants are not included, or if included, it is in such away, as to show that they are not regarded as _property_. Eccl. ii. 7,8. But when the design is to show, not merely the wealth but the_greatness_ of any personage, that he is a man of distinction, a ruler,a prince, servants are spoken of, as well as property. In a word, if_riches_ alone are spoken of, no mention is made of servants; if_greatness_, servants and property. Gen. xiii. 2. _"And Abraham was veryrich in cattle, in silver and in gold."_ No mention of _servants_. So inthe fifth verse; Lot's riches are enumerated, "_And Lot also had flocks,and herds, and tents_." In the seventh verse servants are mentioned,"_And there was a strife between the_ HERDMEN _of Abraham's cattle andthe_ HERDMEN _of Lot's cattle_". See also Josh. xxii. 8; Gen. xxxiv. 23;Job. xlii. 12; 2 Chron. xxi. 3; xxxii. 27-29; Job 1. 3-5; Deut. viii.12-17; Gen. xxiv. 35, and xxvi. 13, and xxx. 43.

Divers facts dropped incidentally, show that when servants are mentionedin connection with property, it is in such a way as to _distinguish_them from it. When Jacob was about to leave Laban, his wives say, "Allthe _riches_ which thou hast taken from our father, that is ours and ourchildren's." Then follows an inventory of property. "All his cattle,""all his goods," "the cattle of his getting," &c. He had a large numberof servants at the time, _but they are not included with his property_.Compare Gen. xxx. 43, with Gen. xxxi. 16-18.

When he sent messengers to Esau, in order to secure his respect, andimpress him with an idea of his state and sway, he bade them tell himnot only of _his_ RICHES, but of his GREATNESS; that Jacob had "_oxen,and asses, and flocks, and men servants, and maid servants_." Gen.xxxii. 4, 5. Yet in the present which he sent, there were no servants;though he seems to have aimed to give it as much variety as possible.Gen. xxxii. 14, 15; see also Gen. xxxvi. 6, 7; Gen. xxxiv. 23. As flocksand herds were the _staples_ of wealth, a large number of servants_presupposed_ large possessions of cattle, which would require manyherdsmen. Further. When servants are spoken of in connection with _mereproperty_, the terms used to express the latter do not include theformer.

The Hebrew word _Mickna_ is an illustration. It is a derivative of_Kana_, to procure, to buy, and its meaning is, a _possession, wealth,riches_. It occurs more than forty times in the Old Testament--and isapplied always to _mere property_--generally to domestic animals, but_never_ to servants. In some instances, servants are mentioned in_distinction_ from the _Mickna._ See Gen. xii. 5. _"And Abraham tookSarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son. And all their_ SUBSTANCE_that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran,and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan_." _Substancegathered_ and _souls gotten_! Many will have it, that these _souls_ werea part of Abraham's _substance_ (notwithstanding the pains here taken toseparate them from it)--that they were _slaves_--probably captives inwar, and now, by right of conquest, taken with him in his migration aspart of his family effects. Who but slaveholders, either actually, or inheart, would torture into the principle and practice of slavery, such aharmless phrase as "_the souls that they had gotten_?" Until the slavetrade breathed its haze upon the vision of the church, and smote herwith palsy and decay, commentators saw no slavery in, "The souls thatthey had gotten." In the Targum of Onkelos[A] it is thus rendered, "Thesouls whom they had brought to obey the law in Haran." In the Targum ofJonathan, thus: "The souls whom they had made proselytes in Haran." Inthe Targum of Jerusalem, "The souls proselyted in Haran." Jarchi, placedby Jewish Rabbis at the head of their commentators, thus renders it:"The souls whom they had brought under the Divine wings." Jerome, one ofthe most learned of the Christian fathers: "The persons whom they hadproselyted." The Persian version thus gives the whole verse, "AndAbraham took Sarah his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all theirwealth which they had accumulated, and the souls which they had _made_."The Vulgate version thus translates it, "Universam substantiam quampossederant et animas quas fecerant in Haran." "The entire wealth whichthey possessed, and the souls which they had made." The Syriac thus,"All their possessions which they possessed, and the souls which theyhad made in Haran." The Arabic, "All their property which they hadacquired, and the souls whom they had made in Haran." The Samarian, "Allthe wealth which they had gathered, and the souls which they had made inHaran." Menochius, a commentator who wrote before our presenttranslation of the English Bible, renders it as follows:--"Quas deidolotraria converterunt[B]." "Those whom they have converted fromidolatry."--Paulus Fagius[C]. "Quas instituerant in religione."--"Thosewhom they had instructed in religion."--Luke Franke, a Germancommentator who lived two centuries ago. "Quas legisubjicerant."--"Those whom they had brought to obey the law."

[Footnote A: The Targums are Chaldee paraphrases of parts of the OldTestament. The Targum of Onkelos is for the most part, a very accurateand faithful translation of the original, and was probably made at aboutthe commencement of the Christian era. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzzielbears about the same date. The Targum of Jerusalem was probably aboutfive hundred years later. The Israelites, during their long captivity inBabylon, lost as a body, their knowledge of their own language. Thesetranslations of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Chaldee, the languagewhich they acquired in Babylon, were thus called for by the necessity ofthe case. ]

[Footnote C: This eminent Hebrew scholar was invited to England byCranmer, then Archbishop of Canterbury, to superintend the translationof the Bible into English, under the patronage of Henry the Eighth. Hehad hardly commenced the work when he died. This was nearly a centurybefore the date of our present translation.]

2. _The condition of servants in their masters' families, the privilegeswhich they shared in common with the children, and their recognition asequals by the highest officers of the government--make the doctrine thatthey were mere_ COMMODITIES, _an absurdity._ The testimony of Paul, inGal. iv. 1, gives an insight into the condition of servants. _"Now I sayunto you, that the heir, so long as he is a child,_ DIFFERETH NOTHINGFROM A SERVANT, _though he be lord of all."_

That Abraham's servants were voluntary,--that their interests wereidentified with those of their master's family--that they were regardedwith great affection by the household, and that the utmost confidencewas reposed in them, is shown in the arming of 318 of them for therecovery of Lot and his family from captivity. See Gen. xiv. 14, 15.

When Abraham's servant went to Padanaram, the young Princess Rebekah didnot disdain to say to him, "Drink, MY Lord," as "she hasted and let downher pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink," and "she hasted andemptied her pitcher, and ran again unto the well, and drew for all hiscamels." Laban, the brother of Rebekah, prepared the house for hisreception, "_ungirded his camels, and brought him water to wash hisfeet, and the men's feet that were with him!"_

In the 9th chapter of 1 Samuel, we have an account of a high festival inthe city of Zuph, at which Samuel, the chief judge and ruler in Israel,presided. None sat down at the feast but those that were bidden. Andonly "about _thirty_ persons" were invited. Quite a select party!--theelite of the city of Zuph! Saul and his servant arrived at Zuph just asthe party was assembling; and _both_ of them, at Samuel's solicitation,accompany him as invited guests. _"And Samuel took Saul and his_SERVANT, _and brought_ THEM _into the_ PARLOR(!) _and made_ THEM _sit inthe_ CHIEFEST SEATS _among those that were bidden."_ A _servant_ invitedby the chief judge, ruler, and prophet in Israel, to dine publicly witha select party, in company with his master, who was _at the same timeanointed King of Israel_; and this servant introduced by Samuel into thePARLOR, and assigned, with his master, to the _chiefest seat_ at thetable! This was "_one_ of the servants" of _Kish_, Saul's father; notthe _steward_ or the _chief_ of them--not at all a _picked_ man, but"_one_ of the servants;" _any_ one that could be most easily spared, asno endowments specially rare would be likely to find scope in lookingafter asses.

Again: we learn from 1 Kings xvi. 8, 9, that Elah, the King of Israel,was slain by Zimri, one of his chief officers, at a festiveentertainment, in the house of Arza, his steward, or head servant, withwhom he seems to have been on terms of familiarity. Without detailingother cases, we refer the reader to the intercourse between Gideon andhis servant.--Judges vii. 10, 11.--Jonathan and his servant.--1 Samuelxiv. 1-14.--Elisha and his servant.

3. _The condition of the Gibeonites, as subjects of the Hebrewcommonwealth, shows that they were neither articles of property, noreven_ INVOLUNTARY _servants_. The condition of the inhabitants ofGibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjathjearim, under the Israelites, isquoted in triumph by the advocates of slavery; and truly they are rightwelcome to all the crumbs that can be gleaned from it. Milton's devilsmade desperate snatches at fruit that turned to ashes on their lips. Thespirit of slavery raves under tormenting gnawings, and casts about inblind phrenzy for something to ease, or even to _mock_ them. But forthis, it would never have clutched at the Gibeonites, for even theincantations of the demon cauldron, could not extract from their caseenough to tantalize starvation's self. But to the question. What was thecondition of the Gibeonites under the Israelites?

(1.) _It was voluntary_. It was their own proposition to Joshua tobecome servants. Joshua ix. 8, 11. Their proposition was accepted, butthe kind of service which they should perform, was not specified untiltheir gross imposition came to light; they were then assigned to menialoffices in the tabernacle.

(2.) _They were not domestic servants in the families of theIsraelites_. They still continued to reside in their own cities,cultivating their own fields, tending their flocks and herds, andexercising the functions of a _distinct_, though not independentcommunity. They were _subject_ to the Jewish nation as _tributaries_. Sofar from being distributed among the Israelites, their family relationsbroken up, and their internal organization as a distinct peopleabolished, they seem to have remained a separate, and, in some respects,an independent community for many centuries. When they were attacked bythe Amorites, they applied to the Israelites as confederates for aid--itwas promptly rendered, their enemies routed, and themselves leftunmolested in the occupation of their cities, while all Israel returnedto Gilgal. Joshua x. 6-18. Long afterwards, Saul slew some of them, andGod sent upon Israel a three years' famine for it. David said to theGibeonites, "What shall I do for you, and wherewith shall I make theatonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord?" At theirdemand, he delivered up to them, seven of the royal family, five of themthe sons of Michal, his own former wife. 2 Samuel xxi. 1-9. The wholetransaction was a formal recognition of the Gibeonites as a separatepeople. There is no intimation that they served families, or individualsof the Israelites, but only the "house of God," or the Tabernacle. Thiswas established first at Gilgal, a day's journey from the cities of theGibeonites; and then at Shiloh, nearly two days' journey from them;where it continued about 350 years. During all this period, theGibeonites inhabited their ancient cities and territory. Only a few,comparatively, could have been absent from their cities at any one timein attendance on the tabernacle.

(1.) Whenever allusion is made to them in the history, the main body arespoken of as _at home_.

(2.) It is preposterous to suppose that their tabernacle services couldhave furnished employment for all the inhabitants of these four cities.One of them "was a great city, as one of the royal cities;" so large,that a confederacy of five kings, apparently the most powerful in theland, was deemed necessary for its destruction. It is probable that themen were divided into classes, and thus ministered at the tabernacle inrotation--each class a few days or weeks at a time. This service wastheir _national tribute_ to the Israelites, rendered for the privilegeof residence and protection under their government. No service seems tohave been required of the _females_. As these Gibeonites wereCanaanites, and as they had greatly exasperated the Israelites byimpudent imposition, hypocrisy, and lying, we might assuredly expectthat they would reduce _them_ to the condition of chattels and property,if there was _any_ case in which God permitted them to do so.

7. _Because, throughout the Mosaic system, God warns them againstholding their servants in such a condition as they were held in by theEgyptians_. How often are the Israelites pointed back to the grindingsof their prison-house! What motives to the exercise of justice andkindness towards their servants, are held out to their fears inthreatened judgements; to their hopes in promised good; and to allwithin them that could feel, by those oft repeated words of tendernessand terror! "For ye were bondmen in the land of Egypt"--waking anew thememory of tears and anguish, and of the wrath that avenged them.

That the argument derived from the condition of the Israelites in Egypt,and God's condemnation of it, may be appreciated, it is important thatthe Egyptian bondage should be analyzed. We shall then be able toascertain, of what rights the Israelites were plundered, and what theyretained.

[Footnote A: The Egyptians evidently had _domestic_ servants living intheir families; these may have been slaves; allusion is made to them inExodus ix. 14, 20, 21. But none of the Israelites were included in thisclass.]

[Footnote B: The land of Goshen was a large tract of country, east ofthe Pelusian arm of the Nile, and between it and the head of the RedSea, and the lower border of Palestine. The probable centre of thatportion, occupied by the Israelites, could hardly, have been less than60 miles from the city. From the best authorities it would seem that theextreme western boundary of Goshen must have been many miles distantfrom Egypt. See "Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt," an able articleby Professor Robinson, in the Biblical Repository for October, 1832.]

(3.) _They lived in permanent dwellings_. These were _houses_, not_tents_. In Ex. xii. 6, the two side _posts_, and the upper door _posts_of the houses are mentioned, and in the 22d, the two side posts and thelintel. Each family seems to have occupied a house _by itself_--Actsvii. 20, Ex. xii. 4--and from the regulation about the eating of thePassover, they could hardly have been small ones--Ex. xii. 4--andprobably contained separate apartments, and places for seclusion. Ex.ii. 2, 3; Acts vii. 20. They appear to have been well apparelled. Ex.xii. 11. To have had their own burial grounds. Ex. xiii. 19, and xiv.11.

(5.) They had their own form of government, and preserved their tribeand family divisions, and their internal organization throughout, thoughstill a province of Egypt, and _tributary_ to it. Ex. ii. 1, and xii.19, 21, and vi. 14, 25, and v. 19, and iii. 16, 18.

(6.) _They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the disposal oftheir own time_,--Ex. xxiii. 4, and iii. 16, 18, and xii. 6, and ii. 9,and iv. 27, 29-31. Also to have practised the fine arts. Ex. xxxii. 4,and xxxv. 32-35.

(7.) _They were all armed_. Ex. xxxii. 27.

(8.) _All the females seem to have known something of domesticrefinements; they were familiar with instruments of music, and skilledin the working of fine fabrics_. Ex. xv. 20, and 35, 36.

(9.) _They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians seemto have regarded them as inviolable_. This we infer from the fact thatthere is no intimation that the Egyptians dispossessed them of theirhabitations, or took away their flocks, or herds, or crops, orimplements of agriculture, or any article of property.

(10.) _Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males_.Nothing is said from which the bond service of females could beinferred; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and thepayment of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such asupposition. Ex. ii. 29.

(11.) So far from being fed upon a given allowance, their food wasabundant, and had great variety. "They sat by the flesh-pots," and "dideat bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3, and xxiv. 1, and xvii. 5, and iv.29, and vi. 14. Also, "they did eat fish freely, and cucumbers, andmelons, and leeks, and onions, and garlic." Num. xi. 4, 5, and x. 18,and xx. 5.

(12.) _That the great body of the people were not in the service of theEgyptians, we infer_ (1) from the fact, that the extent and variety oftheir own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their cropsas would provide them with bread, and such care of their immense flocksand herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must havefurnished constant employment for the main body of the nation.

(2.) During the plague of darkness, God informs us that "ALL thechildren of Israel had light in their dwellings." We infer that theywere _there_ to enjoy it.

(3.) It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only servicenamed during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could havefurnished permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See also Ex.iv. 29-31.

Besides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, it was, as now, inthe use of the levy, requiring them to furnish a given quota, draftedoff periodically, so that comparatively but a small portion of thenation would be absent _at any one time_.

Probably there was the same requisition upon the Israelites forone-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor, that was laid upon theEgyptians. See Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of taking it out of their_crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_ than crops) they exactedit of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that only the_poorer_ Israelites were required to work for the Egyptians at all, thewealthier being able to pay their tribute, in money. See Exod. iv.27-31.

This was the bondage in Egypt. Contrast it with American slavery. Haveour slaves "very much cattle," and "a mixed multitude of flocks andherds?" Do they live in commodious houses of their own? Do they "_sit bythe flesh-pots_," "_eat fish freely_," and "_eat bread to the full_?" Dothey live in a separate community, at a distance from their masters, intheir distinct tribes, under their own rulers and officers? Have theythe exclusive occupation of an extensive and fertile tract of countryfor the culture of their own crops, and for rearing immense herds of_their own_ cattle--and all these held independently of their masters,and regarded by them as inviolable? Are our female slaves free from allexactions of labor and liabilities of outrage?--and whenever employed,are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish woman, when employed by theking's daughter? Exod. ii. 9. Have the females entirely, and the malesto a considerable extent, the disposal of their own time? Have they themeans for cultivating social refinements, for practising the fine arts,and for intellectual and moral improvement?

THE ISRAELITES, UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS ANDPRIVILEGES. True, "_their lives were made bitter, and all the servicewherein they made them serve was with rigor_." But what was that, whencompared with the incessant toil of American slaves, the robbery of alltheir time and earnings, and even the "power to own any thing, oracquire any thing"--the "quart of corn a day," the legal allowance offood[A]!--their _only_ clothing for one half the year, "_one_ shirt and_one_ pair of pantaloons[B]!"--the _two hours and a half_ only for restand refreshment in the twenty-four[C]!--their dwellings, _hovels_, unfitfor human residence, commonly with but one apartment, where both sexesand all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the field.Add to this, the mental ignorance, and moral degradation; the dailyseparations of kindred, the revelries of lust, the lacerations andbaptisms of blood, sanctioned by the laws of the South, and patronizedby its pubic sentiment. What, we ask, was the bondage of Egypt whencompared with this? And yet for _her_ oppression of the poor, God smoteher with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she passed away inhis wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, knew her no more.Ah! "_I have seen the afflictions of my people, and I have heard theirgroanings, and am come down to deliver them_." HE DID COME, and Egyptsank, a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over her.

[Footnote A: The law of North Carolina. See Haywood's Manual, 524-5]

[Footnote B: The law of Louisiana. See Martin's Digest, 610.]

[Footnote C: The whole amount of time secured by the law of Louisiana.See Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12]

If such was God's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, ofhow much sorer punishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy,who cloak with religion, a system, in comparison with which the bondageof Egypt dwindles to nothing?

Let those believe who can, that God gave his people permission to holdhuman beings, robbed of _all_ their rights, while he threatened themwith wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_oppression of Egypt--which robbed its victims of only the _least_ and_cheapest_ of their rights, and left the _females_ unplundered even ofthese. What! _Is God divided against himself_? When he had just turnedEgypt into a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburieddead, and his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke ofher torment went upwards because she had "ROBBED THE POOR," did Helicense the VICTIMS of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As _Lawgiver_,did he _create_ a system tenfold more grinding than that, for which hehad just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and cloven down his princes, andoverwhelmed his hosts, and blasted them with His thunder, till "hell wasmoved to meet them at their coming?"

Having touched upon the general topics which we design to include inthis inquiry, we proceed to examine various Scripture facts andpassages, which will doubtless be set in array against the foregoingconclusions.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

The advocates of slavery are always at their wits end when they try topress the Bible into their service. Every movement shows that they arehard-pushed. Their odd conceits and ever varying shifts, their forcedconstructions, lacking even plausibility, their bold assumptions, andblind guesswork, not only proclaim their _cause_ desperate, butthemselves. Some of the Bible defences thrown around slavery byministers of the Gospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, andhistorical fact, that it were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity,ignorance, or blasphemy, predominates, in compound. Each strives solustily for the mastery, it may be set down a drawn battle.

How often has it been set up in type, that the color of the negro is the_Cain-mark_, propagated downward. Doubtless Cain's posterity started anopposition to the ark, and rode out the flood with flying streamers! Whyshould not a miracle be wrought to point such an argument, and fill outfor slaveholders a Divine title-deed, vindicating the ways of God tomen?

This prophecy of Noah is the _vade mecum_ of slaveholders, and theynever venture abroad without it. It is a pocket-piece for suddenoccasion--a keepsake to dote over--a charm to spell-bind opposition, anda magnet to attract "whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie."But closely as they cling to it, "cursed be Canaan" is a poor drug tostupify a throbbing conscience--a mocking lullaby, vainly wooing slumberto unquiet tossings, and crying "Peace, be still," where God wakes war,and breaks his thunders.

Those who plead the curse on Canaan to justify negro slavery, _assume_all the points in debate.

1. That the condition prophesied was _slavery_, rather than the mere_rendering of service_ to others, and that it was the bondage of_individuals_ rather than the condition of a _nation tributary_ toanother, and in _that_ sense its _servant_.

2. That the _prediction_ of crime _justifies_ it; that it grantsabsolution to those whose crimes fulfil it, if it does not transform thecrimes into _virtues_. How piously the Pharaohs might have quoted God'sprophecy to Abraham, "_Thy seed shall be in bondage, and they shallafflict them for four hundred years_." And then, what _saints_ werethose that crucified the Lord of glory!

3. That the Africans are descended from Canaan. Whereas Africa waspeopled from Egypt and Ethiopia, and Mizraim settled Egypt, and Cush,Ethiopia. See Gen. x. 15-19, for the location and boundaries of Canaan'sposterity. So on the assumption that African slavery fulfils theprophecy, a curse pronounced upon one people, is quoted to justify itsinfliction upon another. Perhaps it may be argued that Canaan includesall Ham's posterity. If so, the prophecy has not been fulfilled. Theother sons of Ham settled the Egyptian and Assyrian empires, andconjointly with Shem the Persian, and afterward, to some extent, theGrecian and Roman. The history of these nations gives no verification ofthe prophecy. Whereas the history of Canaan's descendants, for more thanthree thousand years, is a record of its fulfilment. First, they weremade tributaries by the Israelites. Then Canaan was the servant of Shem.Afterward, by the Medes and Persians. Then Canaan was the servant ofShem, and in part of the other sons of Ham. Afterward, by theMacedonians, Grecians, and Romans, successively. Then Canaan was theservant of Japhet, mainly, and secondarily of the other sons of Ham.Finally, they were subjected by the Ottoman dynasty, where they yetremain. Thus Canaan is _now_ the servant of Shem and Japhet and theother sons of Ham.

But it may still be objected, that though Canaan is the only one _named_in the curse, yet the 22d and 23d verses show that it was pronouncedupon the posterity of Ham in general. "_And Ham, the father of Canaan,saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethrenwithout_."--Verse 22. In verse 23, Shem and Japhet cover their fatherwith a garment. Verse 24, "_And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew whathis YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said_," &c.

It is argued that this younger son cannot be _Canaan_, as he was not the_son_, but the _grandson_ of Noah, and therefore it must be _Ham_. Weanswer, whoever that "_younger son_" was, or whatever he did, _Canaan_alone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word _Ben_, signifiesson, grandson, great-grandson, or _any one_ of the posterity of anindividual. Gen. xxix. 5, "_And he said unto them, Know ye Laban, the_SON _of Nahor_?" Yet Laban was the _grandson_ of Nahor. Gen. xxiv. 15,29. In 2 Sam. xix. 24, it is said, "_Mephibosheth, the_ SON _of Saul,came down to meet the king_." But Mephibosheth was the son of Jonathan,and the _grandson_ of Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. So Ruth iv. 17. "_There is a_SON _born to Naomi_." This was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law ofNaomi. Ruth iv. 13, 15. So 2 Sam. xxi. 6. "_Let seven men of his(Saul's)_ SONS _be delivered unto us_," &c. Seven of Saul's _grandsons_were delivered up. 2 Sam. xxi. 8, 9. So Gen. xxi. 28, "_And hast notsuffered me to kiss my_ SONS _and my daughters_;" and in the 55th verse,"_And early in the morning Laban rose up and kissed his_ SONS," &c.These were his _grandsons_. So 2 Kings ix. 20, "_The driving of Jehu,the_ SON _of Nimshi_." So 1 Kings xix. 16. But Jehu was the _grandson_of Nimshi. 2 Kings ix. 2, 14. Who will forbid the inspired writer to usethe _same_ word when speaking of _Noah's_ grandson?

Further, if Ham were meant what propriety in calling him the _younger_son? The order in which Noah's sons are always mentioned, makes Ham the_second_, and not the _younger_ son. If it be said that Bible usage isvariable, and that the order of birth is not always preserved inenumerations; the reply is, that, enumeration in the order of birth, isthe _rule_, in any other order the _exception_. Besides, if the youngermember of a family, takes precedence of older ones in the family record,it is a mark of pre-eminence, either in original endowments, orprovidential instrumentality. Abraham, though sixty years younger thanhis eldest brother, and probably the youngest of Terah's sons, standsfirst in the family genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history warrants theidea of his pre-eminence; besides, the Hebrew word _Hakkaton_, rendered_younger_, means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isaiahxl. 22. "A LITTLE ONE _shall become a thousand_." Also in Isaiah xxii.24. "_All vessels of_ SMALL _quantity_." So Psalms cxv. 13. "_He willbless them that fear the Lord, both_ SMALL _and great_." Also Exodusxviii. 22. "_But every_ SMALL _matter they shall judge_." It would be aperfectly literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus,"when Noah knew what his little son[A], or grandson (_Beno hakkaton_)had done unto him, he said, cursed be Canaan," &c.

[Footnote A: The French language in this respect follows the sameanalogy. Our word _grandson_ being in French, _petit fils_, (littleson.)]

Even if the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, the assumption thattheir enslavement is a fulfilment of this prophecy, lacks evenplausibility, for, only a mere _fraction_ of the inhabitants of Africahave at any one time been the slaves of other nations. If the objectorsay in reply, that a large majority of the Africans have always beenslaves at _home_, we answer, 1st. _It is false in point of fact_, thoughzealously bruited often to serve a turn. 2d. _If it were true_, how doesit help the argument? The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant ofservants shall he be unto his brethren" not unto _himself_!

OBJECTION II.--"_If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, andhe die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, ifhe continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is hismoney_." Exodus xxi. 20, 21.

Arguments drawn from the Mosaic system in support of slavery, originatein a misconception both of its genius, _as a whole_, and of the designand scope of its most simple provisions. The verses quoted above, affordan illustration in point.

What was the design of this regulation? Was it to grant masters anindulgence to beat servants with impunity? and an assurance, that ifthey beat them to death, the offence would not be _capital_? This issubstantially what some modern Doctors tell us. What Deity do such menworship? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human hecatombs, andsnuffing carnage for incense? Did He who thundered out from Sinai'sflames, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL," offer a bounty on _murder_? Whoeveranalyzes the Mosaic system--the condition of the people for whom it wasmade--their inexperience in government--ignorance of judicialproceedings--laws of evidence, &c., will find a moot court in session,trying law points--setting definitions, or laying down rules ofevidence, in almost every chapter. Numbers xxxv. 10-22; Deuteronomy xi.11, and xix. 4-6; Leviticus xxiv. 19-22; Exodus, xxi. 18, 19, are a few,out of many cases stated, with tests furnished by which to detect _theintent_, in actions brought before them. The detail gone into, in theverses quoted, is manifestly to enable the judges to get at the _motive_of the action, and find out whether the master _designed_ to kill.

1. "If a man smite his servant with a _rod_."--The instrument used,gives a clue to the _intent_. See Numbers xxxv. 16, 18. It was a _rod_,not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any otherdeath-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_would be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_for its weapon. But if the servant dies _under his hand_, then theunfitness of the instrument, instead of being evidence in his favor, ispoint blank against him; for, to strike him with a _rod_ until he_dies_, argues a _great many_ blows laid on with _great_ violence, andthis kept up to the death-gasp, establishes the point of _intent tokill_. Hence the sentence, "He shall _surely_ be punished." The case isplain and strong. But if he continued _a day or two_, the _length oftime that he lived_, together with the _kind_ of instrument used, andthe fact that the master had a pecuniary interest in his _life_, ("he ishis _money_,") all, made out a strong case of circumstantial evidence,showing that the master did not _design_ to kill; and required acorresponding decision and sentence. A single remark on the word"punished:" in Exodus xxi. 20, 21, the Hebrew word here rendered_punished_, (_Nakum_,) is _not so rendered in another instance_. Yet itoccurs thirty-five times in the Old Testament--in almost every instance,it is translated _avenge_--in a few, "_to take vengeance_," or "_torevenge_," and in this instance ALONE, "_punish_." As it stands in ourtranslation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the _master_--the_master_ in the 21st verse, is to be _punished_, and in the 22d _not_ tobe punished; whereas the preceding pronoun refers neither to the_master_ nor to the _servant_, but to the _crime_, and the word rendered_punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. The meaning is this: Ifa man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under hishand, IT (the death) shall surely be avenged, or literally, _by avengingit shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be_avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the next verse--"If hecontinues a day or two," his death shall not be avenged by the _death_of the _master_, for in that case the crime was to be adjudged_manslaughter_, and not _murder_, as in the first instance. In thefollowing verse, another case of personal injury is stated, notintentional, nor extending to life or limb, a mere accidental hurt, forwhich the injurer is to pay _a sum of money_; and yet our translatorsemploy the same phraseology in both places. One, an instance ofdeliberate, wanton, _killing by piecemeal_. The other and _accidental_,and comparatively slight injury--of the inflicter, in both cases, theysay the same thing! "_He shall surely be punished_." Now, just thedifference which common sense would expect to find in such cases, whereGOD legislates, is strongly marked in the original. In the case of theservant wilfully murdered, God says, "It (the death) shall surely be_avenged_," (_Nakum_,) that is, _the life of the wrong doer shallexpiate the crime_. The same word is used in the Old Testament, when thegreatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the perpetrators, whetherindividuals or communities, to _destruction_. In the case of the_unintentional_ injury, in the following verse, God says, "He shallsurely be" _fined_, (_Aunash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judgesdetermine." The simple meaning of the word _Aunash_, is to lay a fine.It is used in Deut. xxii. 19. They shall _amerce_ him in one hundredshekels," and in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 3--"He condemned (_mulcted_) the landin a hundred talents of gold.--This is the general use of the word, andits primary signification. That _avenging_ the death of the servant, wasneither imprisonment, nor stripes, nor amercing the master in damages,but that it was _taking the master's life_ we infer.

2. From the express statute in such case provided. Leviticus xxiv. 17."_He that killeth_ ANY _man_ shall surely be put to death." Also Numbersxxxv. 30, 31. "_Whoso killeth_ ANY _person_, the murderer shall be putto death. _Moreover ye shall take_ NO SATISFACTION _for the life of amurderer which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put todeath_."

3. The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, "Death by the swordshall assuredly be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem thus, "Vengeanceshall be taken for him to the _uttermost_." Jarchi gives the samerendering. The Samaritan version thus, "He shall die the death."

Again, the last clause in the 21st verse ("for he is his money") isoften quoted to prove that the servant is his master's _property_, and_therefore_, if he died, the master was not _to be punished_. _Because_,1st. A man may dispose of his _property_ as he pleases. 2d. If theservant died of the injury, the master's _loss_ was a sufficientpunishment. A word about the premises, before we notice the inferences.The assumption is, that the phrase, "HE IS HIS MONEY," proves not onlythat the servant is _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an_article of property_. If the advocates of slavery will take thisprinciple of interpretation into the Bible, and turn it loose, let themeither give bonds for its behavior, or else stand and draw inself-defence, "lest it turn again and rend" them. If they endorse for itat one point, they must stand sponsors all around the circle. It will betoo late to cry for quarter when they find its stroke clearing the wholetable, and tilting them among the sweepings beneath. The Bible aboundswith such expressions as the following: "This (bread) _is_ my body;""this (wine) _is_ my blood;" "all they (the Israelites) _are_ brass, andtin, and iron, and lead;" "this _is_ life eternal, that they might knowthee;" "this (the water of the well of Bethlehem) _is_ the blood of themen who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "I _am_ the lily of thevalleys;" "a garden enclosed _is_ my sister;" "my tears _have been_ mymeat;" "the Lord God _is_ a sun and a shield;" "God _is_ love;" "theLord _is_ my rock;" "the seven good ears _are_ seven years, and theseven good kine _are_ seven years;" "the seven thin and ill-favored kine_are_ seven years, and the seven empty ears blasted by the east wind_shall be_ seven years of famine;" "he _shall be_ head, and thou _shall_be tail;" "the Lord _will_ be a wall of fire;" "they _shall_ be oneflesh;" "the tree of the field _is_ man's life;" "God _is_ a consumingfire;" "he _is_ his money," &c. A passion for the exact _literalities_of Bible language is so amiable, it were hard not to gratify it in thiscase. The words in the original are (_Kaspo-hu_,) "his _silver_ is he."The objector's principle of interpretation is, a philosopher's stone!Its miracle touch transmutes five feet eight inches of flesh and bonesinto _solid silver_! Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble withall--reasoning against "_forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and,Deut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted.

Who in his senses believes that in the expression, "_He is his money_,"the object was to inculcate the doctrine that the servant was a_chattel_? The obvious meaning is, he is _worth money_ to his master,and since, if the master killed him, it would take money out of hispocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _thefact of his living some time after the injury_, (as, if the master_meant_ to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it,) alltogether make out a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing themaster of _intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector'sinferences. One is, that as the master might dispose of his _property_as he pleased, he was not to be punished, if he destroyed it. Answer.Whether the servant died under the master's hand, or continued a day ortwo, he was _equally_ his master's property, and the objector admitsthat in the _first_ case the master is to be "surely punished" fordestroying _his own property_! The other inference is, that since thecontinuance of a day or two, cleared the master of _intent to kill_, theloss of the slave would be a sufficient punishment for inflicting theinjury which caused his death. This inference makes the Mosaic law falseto its own principles. A _pecuniary loss_, constituted no part of theclaims of the law, where a person took the _life_ of another. In suchcase, the law utterly spurned money, however large the sum. God wouldnot so cheapen human life, as to balance it with such a weight. "_Yeshall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, but he shallsurely be put to death_." See Numb. xxxv. 31. Even in excusablehomicide, a case of death purely accidental, as where an axe slippedfrom the helve and killed a man, no sum of money availed to release fromconfinement in the city of refuge, until the death of the High Priest.Numbers xxxv. 32. The doctrine that the loss of the servant would be apenalty _adequate_ to the desert of the master, admits the master's_guilt_--his desert of _some_ punishment, and it prescribes a _kind_ ofpunishment, rejected by the law, in all cases where man took the life ofman, whether with or without _intent_ to kill. In short, the objectorannuls an integral part of the system--resolves himself into alegislature, with power in the premises, makes a _new_ law, and coollymetes out such penalty as he thinks fit, both in kind and quantity.Mosaic statutes amended, and Divine legislation revised and improved!

The master who struck out the tooth of a servant, whether intentionallyor not, was required to set him free for his tooth's sake. The_pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though the servant had_died_. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so severely,that after a day or two he dies of his wounds; another masteraccidentally strikes out his servant's tooth, and his servant isfree--_the pecuniary loss of both masters is the same._ The objectorcontends that the loss of the slave's services in the first case ispunishment sufficient for the crime of killing him; yet God commands the_same_ punishment for even the _accidental_ knocking out of a _tooth_!Indeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertently_, the loss of theservant's services is only a _part_ of the punishment--mere reparationto the _individual_ for injury done; the _main_ punishment, thatstrictly _judicial_, was, reparation to the _community_ for injury toone of its members. To set the servant _free_, and thus proclaim hisinjury, his right to redress, and the measure of it--answered not theends of public justice. The law made an example of the offender, "thosethat remain might hear and fear." _"If a man cause a blemish in hisneighbour, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach forbreach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in aman, so shall it be done to him again. You have one manner of law aswell for the_ STRANGER _as for one of your own country_." Lev. xxiv. 19,20, 22. Finally, if a master smote out the tooth of a servant, the lawsmote out _his_ tooth--thus redressing the _public_ wrong; and itcancelled the servant's obligation to the master, thus giving somecompensation for the injury done, and exempting him from perilousliabilities in future.

OBJECTION III. _Both the bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have,shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buybondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that dosojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that arewith you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be yourpossession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your childrenafter you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmenforever_. Lev. xxv. 44-46.

The _points_ in these verses, urged as proof, that the Mosaic systemsanctioned slavery, are 1. The word "BONDMEN." 2. "BUY." 3. "INHERITANCEAND POSSESSION." 4. "FOREVER."

The _second_ point, the _buying_ of servants, has been alreadydiscussed, see page 15. And a part of the _third_ (holding servants as a"possession." See p. 36.) We will now ascertain what sanction to slaveryis derivable from the terms "bondmen," "inheritance," and "forever."

I. BONDMEN. The fact that servants, from the heathen are called"_bondmen_," while others are called "servants," is quoted as proof thatthe former were slaves. As the _caprices_ of King James' translatorswere not divinely inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. Theword rendered _bondmen_, in this passage, is the same word uniformlyrendered _servants_ elsewhere. To infer from this that the Gentileservants were slaves, is absurd. Look at the use of the Hebrew word"_Ebed_," the plural of which is here translated "_bondmen_." In Isaiahxlii. 1, the _same word_ is applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_(bondman, slave?) whom I have chosen, mine elect in whom my souldelighteth." So Isaiah lii. 13. "Behold my _servant_ (Christ) shall dealprudently." In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, it is applied to _King Rehoboam_. "Andthey (the old men) spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a _servant_(_Ebed_) unto this people this day, and will serve them and answer them,and wilt speak good words to them, then they will be thy _servants_forever." In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, it is applied to the king andall the nation. In fine, the word is applied to _all_ persons doingservice to others--to magistrates, to all governmental officers, totributaries, to all the subjects of governments, to youngersons--defining their relation to the first born, who is called _Lord_and _ruler_--to prophets, to kings, to the Messiah, and in respectfuladdresses not less than _fifty_ times in the Old Testament.

If the Israelites not only held slaves, but multitudes of them, why hadtheir language _no word_ that _meant slave_? If Abraham had thousands,and if they _abounded_ under the Mosaic system, why had they no such_word_ as slave or slavery? That language must be wofully povertystricken, which has _no signs_ to represent the most _common_ and_familiar_ objects and conditions. To represent by the same word, andwithout figure, _property_, and the _owner_ of that property, is asolecism. Ziba was an "_Ebed_," yet he _"owned_" (!) twenty _Ebeds_. In_English_, we have both the words _servant_ and _slave_. Why? Because wehave both the _things_, and need _signs_ for them. If the tongue had asheath, as swords have scabbards, we should have some _name_ for it: butour dictionaries give us none. Why? because there is no such _thing_.But the objector asks, "Would not the Israelites use their word _Ebed_if they spoke of the slave of a heathen?" Answer. The servants ofindividuals among the heathen are scarcely ever alluded to. _National_servants or _tributaries_, are spoken of frequently, but so rarely aretheir _domestic_ servants alluded to, no necessity existed, even if theywere slaves, for coining a new word. Besides, the fact of their beingdomestics, under _heathen laws and usages_, proclaimed their_liabilities_; their locality told their condition; so that in applyingto them the word _Ebed_, there would be no danger of beingmisunderstood. But if the Israelites had not only _servants_, butbesides these, a multitude of _slaves_, a _word meaning slave_, wouldhave been indispensable for purposes of every day convenience. Further,the laws of the Mosaic system were so many sentinels on every side, towarn off foreign practices. The border ground of Canaan, was quarantineground, enforcing the strictest non-intercourse between the _without_and the _within_, not of _persons_, but of _usages_. The fact that theHebrew language had no words corresponding to _slave_ and _slavery_,though not a conclusive argument, is no slight corroborative.

II. "FOREVER."--"They shall be your bondmen _forever_." This is quotedto prove that servants were to serve during their life time, and theirposterity, from generation to generation.

No such idea is contained in the passage. The word _forever_, instead ofdefining the length of _individual_ service, proclaims the _permanence_of the regulation laid down in the two verses preceding, namely, thattheir _permanent domestics_ should be of the _Strangers_, and not of theIsraelites; and it declares the duration of that general provision. Asif God had said, "You shall _always_ get your _permanent_ laborers fromthe nations round about you--your _servants_ shall always be of _that_class of persons." As it stands in the original, it is plain--"_Foreverof them shall ye serve yourselves_." This is the literal rendering ofthe Hebrew words, which, in our version, are translated, "_They shall beyour bondmen forever_."

This construction is in keeping with the whole of the passage. "Both thybondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the_heathen_ (the nations) that are round about you. OF THEM shall ye buybondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that dosojourn among you, OF THEM shall ye buy," &c. The design of this passageis manifest from its structure. It was to point out the _class_ ofpersons from which they were to get their supply of servants, and the_way_ in which they were to get them. That "_forever_" refers to thepermanent relations of a _community_, rather than to the services of_individuals_, is a fair inference from the form of the expression,"THEY shall be your possession. Ye shall take _them_ as an inheritancefor your children to inherit them for a possession." To say nothing ofthe uncertainty of _these individuals_ surviving those _after_ whom theyare to live, the language used, applies more naturally to a _body_ ofpeople, than to _individual_ servants.

But suppose it otherwise; still _perpetual_ service could not be arguedfrom the term _forever_. The ninth and tenth verses of the same chapter,limit it absolutely by the jubilee. "_Then shall thou cause the trumpetof the jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month: in theday of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout_ ALL _yourland." "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim libertythroughout all the land unto_ ALL _the inhabitants thereof_."

It may be objected that "inhabitants" here means _Israelitish_inhabitants alone. The command is, "Proclaim liberty throughout all theland unto ALL _the inhabitants thereof_." Besides, in the sixth verse,there is an enumeration of the different classes of the inhabitants, inwhich servants and strangers are included. "_And the Sabbath of the landshall be meet for_ YOU--[For whom? For you _Israelites_ only?]--_forthee, and for thy_ SERVANT, _and for thy maid, and for thy hiredservant, and for thy_ STRANGER _that sojourneth with thee_."

Further, in all the regulations of the jubilee, and the sabbatical year,the strangers are included in the precepts, prohibitions, and promisedblessings. Again: the year of jubilee was ushered in, by the day ofatonement. What was the design of these institutions? The day ofatonement prefigured the atonement of Christ, and the year of jubilee,the gospel jubilee. And did they prefigure an atonement and a jubilee to_Jews_ only? Were they the types of sins remitted, and of salvation,proclaimed to the nation of _Israel_ alone? Is there no redemption forus Gentiles in these ends of the earth, and is our hope presumption andimpiety? Did that old partition wall survive the shock, that made earthquake, and hid the sun, burst graves and rocks, and rent the templevail? And did the Gospel only rear it higher to thunder direr perditionfrom its frowning battlements on all without? No! The God of OURsalvation lives. "Good tidings of great joy shall be to ALL people."_One_ shout shall swell from _all_ the ransomed, "Thou hast redeemed usunto God by thy blood out of EVERY kindred, and tongue, and people, andnation." To deny that the blessings of the jubilee extended to theservants from the _Gentiles_, makes Christianity _Judaism_. It not onlyeclipses the glory of the Gospel, but strikes out the sun. The refusalto release servants at the sound of the jubilee trumpet, falsified anddisannulled a grand leading type of the atonement, and thus libelled thedoctrine of Christ's redemption.

Finally, even if _forever_ did refer to the length of _individual_service, we have ample precedents for limiting the term by the jubilee.The same word is used to define the length of time for which those_Jewish_ servants were held, who refused to go out in the _seventh_year. And all admit that their term of service did not go beyond thejubilee. Ex. xxi. 2-6; Deut. xv. 12-17.

The 23d verse of the same chapter is quoted to prove that "_forever_" inthe 46th verse, extends beyond the jubilee. "_The land shall not besold_ FOREVER, _for the land is mine_"--as it would hardly be used indifferent senses in the same general connection. In reply, we repeatthat _forever_ respects the duration of the _general arrangement_, andnot that of _individual service_. Consequently, it is not affected bythe jubilee; so the objection does not touch the argument. But it maynot be amiss to show that it is equally harmless against any otherargument drawn from the use of forever in the 46th verse,--for the wordthere used, is _Olam_, meaning _throughout the period_, whatever thatmay be. Whereas in the 23d verse, it is _Tsemithuth_, meaning _cuttingoff_, or _to be cut off_.

III. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION."--"_Ye shall take them as an_INHERITANCE _for your children after you to inherit them for apossession_." This refers to the _nations_, and not to the _individual_servants, procured from these nations. We have already shown, thatservants could not be held as a _property_-possession, and inheritance;that they became servants of their _own accord_, and were paid wages;that they were released by law from their regular labor nearly _half thedays in each year_, and thoroughly _instructed_; that the servants were_protected_ in all their personal, social, and religious rights, equallywith their masters, &c. Now, truly, all remaining, after these amplereservations, would be small temptation, either to the lust of power orof lucre. What a profitable "possession" and "inheritance!" What if ourAmerican slaves were all placed in _just such a condition_! Alas, forthat soft, melodious circumlocution, "Our PECULIAR species of property!"Truly, emphasis is cadence, and euphony and irony have met together!

What eager snatches at mere words, and bald technics, irrespective ofconnection, principles of construction, Bible usages, or limitations ofmeaning by other passages--and all to eke out such a sense as accordswith existing usages and sanctifies them, thus making God pander fortheir lusts. Little matter whether the meaning of the word be primary orsecondary, literal or figurative, _provided_ it sustains theirpractices.

But let us inquire whether the words rendered "inherit" and"inheritance," when used in the Old Testament, necessarily point out thethings inherited and possessed as _articles of property_. _Nahal_ and_Nahala_--_inherit_ and _inheritance_. See 2 Chronicles x. 16. "Thepeople answered the king and said, What portion have we in David, and wehave none _inheritance_ in the son of Jesse." Did they mean gravely todisclaim the holding of their king as an article of _property?_ Psalmscxxvii. 3--"Lo, children are an _heritage_ (inheritance) of the Lord."Exodus xxxiv. 9--"Pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for thine_inheritance_." When God pardons his enemies, and adopts them as hischildren, does he make them _articles of property?_ Are forgiveness, andchattel-making, synonymes? Psalms cxix. 111--"Thy testimonies have Itaken as a _heritage_ (inheritance) forever." Ezekiel xliv. 27, 28--"Andin the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court tominister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin-offering, saith theLord God. And it shall be unto them for an _inheritance_; _I_ am their_inheritance_." Psalms ii. 8--"Ask of me, and I will give thee theheathen for thine _inheritance_." Psalms xciv. 14--"For the Lord willnot cast off his people, neither will he forsake his _inheritance_." Seealso Deuteronomy iv. 20; Joshua xiii. 33; Chronicles x. 16; Psalmslxxxii. 8, and lxxviii. 62, 71; Proverbs xiv. 8.

The question whether the servants were a PROPERTY--"_possession_," hasbeen already discussed--(See p. 36)--we need add in this place but aword. _Ahusa_ rendered "_possession_." Genesis xlii. 11--"And Josephplaced his father and his brethren, and gave them a _possession_ in theland of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, asPharaoh had commanded."

In what sense was the land of Goshen the _possession_ of the Israelites?Answer, In the sense of, _having it to live in_. In what sense were theIsraelites to _possess_ these nations, and _take them_ as an_inheritance for their children?_ We answer, They possessed them as _apermanent source of supply for domestic or household servants. And thisrelation to these nations was to go down to posterity as a standingregulation--a national usage respecting them, having the certainty andregularity of a descent by inheritance_. The sense of the wholeregulation may be given thus: "Thy permanent domestics, both male andfemale, which thou shalt have, shall be of the nations that are roundabout you, of _them_ shall ye get male and female domestics." "Moreoverof the children of the foreigners that do sojourn among you, of _them_shall ye get, and of their families that are with you, which they begatin your land, and _they_ shall be your permanent resource," (forhousehold servants.) "And ye shall take them as a _perpetual_ provisionfor your children after you, to hold as a _constant source of supply_.ALWAYS _of them_ shall ye serve yourselves."

OBJECTION IV. "_If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, andbe sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a_BOND-SERVANT, _but as an_ HIRED-SERVANT, _and as a sojourner shall he bewith thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee_." Lev. xxv.39, 40.

From the fact that only _one_ class of the servants is called _hired_,it is sagely inferred that servants of the _other_ class were _not paid_for their labor. That is, that while God thundered anathemas againstthose who "used their neighbor's service _without wages_," he granted aspecial indulgence to his chosen people to seize persons, force them towork, and rob them of earnings, provided always, in selecting theirvictims, they spared "the gentlemen of property and standing," andpounced only upon the _strangers_ and the _common_ people. The inferencethat "_hired_" is synonimous with _paid_, and that those servants not_called_ "hired" were _not paid_ for their labor, is a _mereassumption_.

The meaning of the English verb _to hire_, is, as every one knows, toprocure for a temporary use at a curtain price--to engage a person to_temporary_ service for wages. That is also the meaning of the Hebrewword "_Saukar_." _Temporary_ service, and generally for a _specific_object, is inseparable from its meaning. It is never used when theprocurement of _permanent_ service, for a long period, is spoken of.Now, we ask, would _permanent_ servants, those who constituted anintegral and stationary part of the family, have been designated by thesame term that marks _temporary_ servants? The every-day distinctionsmade on this subject, are as familiar as table-talk. In many families,the domestics perform only such labor, as every day brings along withit--the _regular_ work. Whatever is _occasional_ merely, as the washingof a family, is done by persons _hired expressly for the purpose_. Insuch families, the familiar distinction between the two classes, is"servants," or "domestics," and "hired help," (not _paid_ help.) _Both_classes are _paid_. One is permanent, the other occasional andtemporary, and therefore in this case called "_hired_." To suppose aservant robbed of his earnings, because when spoken of, he is not calleda _hired_ servant, is profound induction! If I employ a man at twelvedollars a month to work my farm, he is my _"hired"_ man, but if, insteadof giving him so much a month, I _give him such a portion of the crop_,or in other words, if he works my farm _"on shares,"_ he is no longer my_hired_ man. Every farmer knows that _that_ designation is not appliedto him. Yet he works the same farm, in the same way, at the same times,and with the same teams and tools; and does the same amount of work inthe year, and perhaps clears twenty dollars a month, instead of thetwelve, paid him while he was my _hired_ laborer. Now, as the technic_"hired"_ is no longer used to designate him, and as he still labors onmy farm, suppose my neighbors gather in conclave, and from such amplepremises sagely infer, that since he is no longer my _"hired"_ laborer,I _rob_ him of his earnings, and with all the gravity of owls, theyrecord their decision, and adjourn to hoot it abroad. My neighbors aredeep divers!--like some theological professors, they not only go to thebottom, but come up covered with the tokens.

A variety of particulars are recorded in the Bible, distinguishing_hired_ from _bought_ servants. (1.) Hired servants were paid daily atthe close of their work. Lev. xix 13; Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Job. vii. 2;Matt. xx. 8. _"Bought"_ servants were paid in advance, (a reason fortheir being called, _bought_,) and those that went out at the seventhyear received a _gratuity_ at the close of their period of service.Deut. xv. 12-13. (2.) The hired servant was paid _in money_, the boughtservant received his _gratuity_, at least, in grain, cattle, and theproduct of the vintage. Deut. xiv. 17. (3.) The _hired_ servant _livedby himself_, in his own family. The _bought_ servant was a part of hismaster's family. (4.) The _hired_ servant supported his family out ofhis wages; the _bought_ servant and his family, were supported by themaster _besides_ his wages.

A careful investigation of the condition of "_hired_" and of "_bought_"servants, shows that the latter were, _as a class, superior to theformer_--were more trust-worthy, had greater privileges, and occupied inevery respect (_other_ things being equal) a higher station in society.(1.) _They were intimately incorporated with the family of the master_.They were guests at family festivals, and social solemnities, from whichhired servants were excluded. Lev. xxii. 10; Exod. xii. 43, 45. (2)_Their interests were far more identified with the general interests oftheir masters' family._ Bought servants were often actually, orprospectively, heirs of their master's estate. Witness the case ofEliezer, of Ziba, of the sons of Bilhah, and Zilpah, and others. Whenthere were no sons to inherit the estate, or when, by unworthiness, theyhad forfeited their title, bought servants were made heirs. Proverbsxvii. 2. We find traces of this usage in the New Testament. "But whenthe husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, this isthe _heir_, come let us kill him, _that the inheritance may be ours_."Luke xx. 14; also Mark xii. 7. In no instance on Bible record, does a_hired_ servant inherit his master's estate. (3.) _Marriages took placebetween servants and their master's daughters_. "Now Sheshan had nosons, but daughters: and Sheshan had a _servant_, an Egyptian, whosename was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant towife." 1 Chron. ii. 34, 35. There is no instance of a _hired_ servantforming such an alliance.

(4.) _Bought servants and their descendants seem to have been regardedwith the same affection and respect as the other members of thefamily[A]._ The treatment of Eliezer, and the other servants in thefamily of Abraham, Gen. chap. 25--the intercourse between Gideon and hisservant Phurah, Judges vii. 10, 11. and Saul and his servant, in theirinterview with Samuel, 1 Sam. ix. 5, 22; and Jonathan and his servant, 1Sam. xiv. 1-14, and Elisha and his servant Gehazi, are illustrations. Nosuch tie seems to have existed between _hired_ servants and theirmasters. Their untrustworthiness seems to have been proverbial. See Johnix. 12, 13.

None but the _lowest class_ seem to have engaged as hired servants. Noinstance occurs in which they are assigned to business demanding muchknowledge or skill. Various passages show the low repute and triflingcharacter of the class from which they were hired. Judges ix. 4; 1 Sam.ii. 5.

The superior condition and privileges of bought servants, are manifestedin the high trusts confided to them, and in the dignity and authoritywith which they were clothed in their master's household. But in noinstance is a _hired_ servant thus distinguished. In some cases, the_bought_ servant is manifestly the master's representative in thefamily--with plenipotentiary powers over adult children, evennegotiating marriage for them. Abraham besought Eliezer his servant, totake a solemn oath, that HE would not take a wife for Isaac of thedaughters of the Canaanites, but from Abraham's kindred. The servantwent accordingly, and _himself_ selected the individual. Servants alsoexercised discretionary power in the management of their master'sestate, "And the servant took ten camels, of the camels of his master,_for all the goods of his master were under his hand_." Gen. xxiv. 10.The reason assigned for taking them, is not that such was Abraham'sdirection, but that the servant had discretionary control. Servants hadalso discretionary power in the _disposal of property_. See Gen. xxiv.22, 23, 53. The condition of Ziba in the house of Mephiboseth, is a casein point. So is Prov. xvii. 2. Distinct traces of this estimation are tobe found in the New Testament, Math. xxiv. 45; Luke xii. 42, 44. So inthe parable of the talents; the master seems to have set up each of hisservants in trade with considerable capital. One of them could not havehad less than eight thousand dollars. The parable of the unjust stewardis another illustration. Luke xvi. 4, 8. He evidently was entrusted withlarge _discretionary_ power, was "accused of wasting his master'sgoods." and manifestly regulated with his master's debtors, the _terms_of settlement. Such trusts were never reposed in _hired_ servants.

The inferior condition of _hired_ servants, is illustrated in theparable of the prodigal son. When the prodigal, perishing with hungeramong the swine and husks, came to himself, his proud heart broke; "Iwill arise," he cried, "and go to my father." And then to assure hisfather of the depth of his humility, resolved to add imploringly, "Makeme as one of thy _hired_ servants." It need not be remarked, that if_hired_ servants were the _superior_ class; to apply for the situation,and press the suit, savored little of that sense of unworthiness thatseeks the dust with hidden face, and cries "unclean." Unhumbled nature_climbs_; or if it falls, clings fast, where first it may. Humilitysinks of its own weight, and in the lowest deep, digs lower. The designof the parable was to illustrate on the one hand, the joy of God, as hebeholds afar off, the returning sinner "seeking an injured father'sface" who runs to clasp and bless him with an unchiding welcome; and onthe other, the contrition of the penitent, turning homeward with tears,from his wanderings, his stricken spirit breaking with its ill-desert,he sobs aloud, "The lowest place, _the lowest place_, I can abide noother." Or in those inimitable words, "_Father, I have sinned againstHeaven, and in thy sight, and no more worthy to be called thy son; makeme as one of thy_ HIRED _servants_." The supposition that _hired_servants were the _highest_ class, takes from the parable an element ofwinning beauty and pathos. It is manifest to every careful student ofthe Bible, that _one_ class of servants, was on terms of equality withthe children and other members of the family. (Hence the force of Paul'sdeclaration, Gal. iv. 1, _"Now I say unto you, that the heir, so long ashe is a child,_ DIFFERETH NOTHING FROM A SERVANT, _though he be lord ofall."_) If this were the _hired_ class, the prodigal was a sorryspecimen of humility. Would our Lord have put such language, into thelips of one held up by himself, as a model of gospel humility, toillustrate its lowliness, its conscious destitution of all merit, anddeep sense of all ill desert? If this is _humility_, put it on stilts,and set it a strutting, while pride takes lessons, and blunders inapeing it.

Here let it be observed, that both Israelites and Strangers, belongedindiscriminately to _each_ class of the servants, the _bought_ and the_hired_. That those in the former class, whether Jews or Strangers, werein higher estimation, and rose to honors and authority in the familycircle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been alreadyshown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges,merely _political_ and _national_, the hired servants from the_Israelites_, were more favored than either the hired, or the boughtservants from the _Strangers_. No one from the Strangers, howeverwealthy or highly endowed, was eligible to the highest office, nor couldhe own the soil. This last disability seems to have been one reason forthe different periods of service required of the two classes of boughtservants--the Israelites and the Strangers. The Israelite was to servesix years--the Stranger until the jubilee[A].

[Footnote A: Both classes may with propriety be called _permanent_servants; even the bought Israelite, when his six-years' service iscontrasted with the brief term of the hired servant.]

As the Strangers could not own the soil, nor even houses, except withinwalled towns, most of them would choose to attach themselves permanentlyto Israelitish families. Those Strangers who were wealthy, or skilled inmanufactures, instead of becoming servants themselves, would needservants for their own use, and as inducements for the Strangers tobecome servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of theirown nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers wouldnaturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants. See Levit. xxv.47. In a word, such was the political condition of the Strangers, theJewish polity furnished a strong motive to them, to become servants,thus incorporating themselves with the nation, and procuring thosesocial and religious privileges already enumerated, and for theirchildren in the second generation, a permanent inheritance. (This lastwas a regulation of later date. Ezekiel xlvii. 21-23.) Indeed, thestructure of the whole Mosaic polity, was a virtual bounty offered tothose who would become permanent servants, and merge in the Jewishsystem their distinct nationality. None but the monied aristocracy amongthem, would be likely to decline such offers.

For various reasons, this class, (the servants bought from theStrangers,) would prefer a _long_ service. They would thus moreeffectually become absorbed into the national circulation, and identifytheir interests with those in whose gift were all things desirable forthemselves, and brighter prospects for their children. On the otherhand, the Israelites, owning all the soil, and an inheritance of landbeing a sort of sacred possession, to hold it free of incumbrance, was,with every Israelite, a delicate point, both of family honor andpersonal character. 1 Kings xxi. 3. Hence, to forego the _possession_ ofone's inheritance, _after_ the division of the paternal domain, or to berestrained from its _control_, after having acceded to it, was a burdengrievous to be borne. To mitigate, as much as possible, such a calamity,the law, instead of requiring the Israelite to continue a servant untilthe jubilee, released him at the end six years[A], as, during thattime--if, of the first class--the partition of the patrimonial landmight have taken place; or, if of the second, enough money might havebeen earned to disencumber his estate, and thus he might assume hisstation as a lord of the soil. If these contingencies had not occurred,then, at the end of another six years, the opportunity was againoffered, and in the same manner until the jubilee. So while strongmotives urged the Israelite, to discontinue his service as soon as theexigency had passed, which induced him to become a servant, everyconsideration impelled the _Stranger_ to _prolong_ his term of service;and the same kindness which dictated the law of six years' service forthe Israelite, assigned as the general rule, a much longer period to theGentile servant, who, instead of being tempted to a brief service, hadevery inducement to protract the term.

[Footnote A: Another reason for protracting the service until theseventh year, seems to have been, its coincidence with otherarrangements, and provisions, inseparable from the Jewish economy. Thatperiod was a favorite one in the Mosaic system. Its pecuniaryresponsibilities, social relations and general internal structure, ifnot _graduated_ upon a septennial scale, were variously modified by thelapse of the period. Another reason doubtless was, that as thoseIsraelites who became servants through poverty, would not sellthemselves, except as a last resort when other expedients to recruittheir finances had failed--(See Lev. xxv. 35)--their _becoming servants_proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as demanded the labor of _acourse of years_ fully to reinstate them.]

It is important to a clear understanding of the whole subject, to keepin mind that adult Jews ordinarily became servants, only as a temporaryexpedient to relieve themselves from embarrassment, and ceased to besuch when that object was effected. The poverty that forced them to itwas a calamity, and their service was either a means of relief, or ameasure of prevention. It was not pursued as a _permanent business_, butresorted to on emergencies--a sort of episode in the main scope of theirlives. Whereas with the Strangers, it was a _permanent employment_,pursued not merely as a _means_ of bettering their own condition, andprospectively that of their posterity, but also, as an _end_ for its ownsake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation nototherwise attainable.

We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, arecalled by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_, as ourtranslators have it.) (1.) They followed it as a _permanent business_.(2.) Their term of service was _much longer_ than that of the otherclass. (3.) As a class, they doubtless greatly outnumbered theIsraelitish servants. (4.) All the Strangers that dwelt in the land,were _tributaries_ to the Israelites--required to pay an annual tributeto the government, either in money, or in public service, which wascalled a "_tribute of bond-service_;" in other words, all the Strangerswere _national servants_, to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew wordwhich is used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates_national_ servants or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, 14. 2 Chron.viii. 7-9. Deut. xx. 11. 2 Sam. x. 19. 1 Kings ix. 21, 22. 1 Kings iv.21. Gen. xxvii. 29. The same word is applied to the Israelites, whenthey paid tribute to other nations. See 2 Kings xvii. 3. Judges iii. 8,14. Gen. xlix. 15. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentilebought servants, claims notice. It was in the _kinds_ of serviceassigned to each class. The servants from the Strangers, were properlythe _domestics_, or household servants, employed in all family work, inoffices of personal attendance, and in such mechanical labor, as wasconstantly required in every family, by increasing wants, and neededrepairs. On the other hand, the Jewish bought servants seem to have beenalmost exclusively _agricultural_. Besides being better fitted for thisby previous habits--agriculture, and the tending of cattle, wereregarded by the Israelites as the most honorable of all occupations;kings engaged in them. After Saul was elected king, and escorted toGibeah, the next report of him is, "_And behold Saul came after the herdout of the field_."--1 Sam. xi. 7.

Elisha "was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen" when Elijah threw hismantle upon him. 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah "loved husbandry." 2Chron. xxvi. 10. Gideon, the deliverer of Israel, _was "threshing wheat_by the wine press" when called to lead the host against the Midianites.Judges vi. 11. The superior honorableness of agriculture, is shown bythe fact, that it was _protected and supported by the fundamental law_of the theocracy--God thus indicating it as the chief prop of thegovernment, and putting upon it peculiar honor. An inheritance of landseems to have filled out an Israelite's idea of worldly furnishment.They were like permanent fixtures on their soil, so did they cling toit. To be agriculturalists on their own inheritances, was, in theirnotions, the basis of family consequence, and the grand claim tohonorable estimation. Agriculture being pre-eminently a _Jewish_employment, to assign a native Israelite to _other_ employments as a_business_, was to break up his habits, do violence to cherishedpredilections, and put him to a kind of labor in which he had no skill,and which he deemed degrading. In short, it was, in the earlier ages ofthe Mosaic system, practically to _unjew_ him, a hardship and rigorgrievous to be borne, as it annihilated a visible distinction betweenthe descendants of Abraham and the Strangers--a distinction vital to thesystem, and gloried in by every Jew.

_To guard this and another fundamental distinction_, God instituted theregulation contained in Leviticus xxv. 39, which stands at the head ofthis branch of our inquiry, "_If thy brother that dwelleth by thee bewaxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve asa bond-servant._" In other words, thou shalt not put him to _servants'work_--to the _business_, and into the _condition_ of _domestics_.

In the Persian version it is translated thus, "Thou shalt not assign tohim the work of _servitude_," (or _menial_ labor.) In the Septuagintthus, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a _domestic orhousehold servant_." In the Syriac thus, "Thou shalt not employ himafter the manner of servants." In the Samaritan thus, "Thou shalt notrequire him to serve in the service of a servant." In the Targum ofOnkelos thus, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a householdservant." In the Targum of Jonathan thus, "Thou shalt not cause him toserve according to the usages of the servitude of servants[A]." In fine,"thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant," means, _thoushalt not assign him to the same grade, nor put him to the sameservices, with permanent domestics._

[Footnote A: Jarchi's comment on "Thou shalt not compel him to serve asa bond-servant" is, "the Hebrew servant is not to be required to do anything which is accounted degrading--such as all offices of personalattendance, as loosing his master's shoe latchet, bringing him water towash his feet and hands, waiting on him at table, dressing him, carryingthings to and from the bath. The Hebrew servant is to work with hismaster as a son or brother, in the business of his farm, or other labor,until his legal release."]

We pass to the remainder of the regulation in the 40th verse:--

"_But as an hired servant and as a sojourner shall he be with thee_."Hired servants were not incorporated into the families of their masters;they still retained their own family organization, without the surrenderof any domestic privilege, honor, or authority; and this, even thoughthey resided under the same roof with their master. Whilebought-servants were associated with their master's families at meals,at the Passover, and at other family festivals, hired servants and